VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
221 
furnished were of the value of ten dollars. He also alleged lack 
of knowledge, unskillful treatment and negligence of the patient 
in the treatment of said horse, whereby defendant was com¬ 
pelled to employ another veterinary surgeon, under whose skill¬ 
ful treatment the horse recovered. 
On the trial the plaintiff was sworn as a witness and testified 
as to his attendance upon and furnishing medicine for defend¬ 
ant’s horse, and as to the value of said services and medicine. 
He testified that he prescribed for inflammation of the bowels. 
On the part of the defendant evidence was produced tending to 
show that the horse did not have inflammation of the bowels, 
for which the plaintiff treated him. That the last time plaintiff 
visited the horse he was no better, and that plaintiff was in¬ 
formed of that fact. The horse was at that time throwing him¬ 
self, getting up and throwing himself continuously. That one 
could hear him out on the sidewalk and people complained of 
the noise. That defendant kept a man in attendance upon 
him. That the animal being in this condition, plaintiff left 
agreeing to call again the next day very early, but in fact he 
never came. That plaintiffs last call was on Monday, and on 
Tuesday night defendant called in another veterinary surgeon. 
The opinion in this case when before the Supreme Court 
was written by Judge Putnam. In the course of the decision 
the learned judge held that the same rules are applicable to the 
case of a veterinary surgeon bringing an action to recover for 
the value of services, as have been held applicable to other 
physicians and surgeons. He must possess and exercise a rea¬ 
sonable degree of learning and skill. He must use reasonable 
and ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of his skill and 
the application of his knowledge. 
(Carpenter vs. Blake, io Hun., 358; Hathorn vs. Richmond, 
48 Vt., 557.) 
Further the decision declares that on the evidence in this 
case, the City Court could properly find want of care and neg¬ 
ligence on the part of plaintiff in treating defendant’s horse, in 
fact great negligence. The evidence produced by defendant, 
